Author
Topic: Punishing Eve (Read 1585 times)

This is a series of articles by Janet Wise that discusses the misogynistic tendencies built into proto-judaism and xianity. It starts off a little hyperbolic, referring to the American xian fundies as the "American taliban". But as the essays go on, there is some solid history and analysis.

Part 1, the basic introduction to the topic:

Quote

Since the first settlers landed on the shores of America there has been a group of wealthy elite males who have taken over the social order: they were the adventuring sons of the landed gentry in England seeking wealth and land in the new territory through whatever brutal and barbaric means at their disposal.

I'd think they would be in charge because it is my experience they are way tougher emotionally. I do not know any woman who got cancer and did not fight it. They cried for a little while after the diagnosis and then got their act together and got on with treatment.

Men I know, on the other hand, who received prostate cancer diagnoses, pretty much gave up and decided their lives were over. They had to be pushed into treatment by their wives. The father of a friend of mine was diagnosed as diabetic in his 50s, but did absolutely nothing to treat it. He died a couple years later. Essentially, it was suicide by neglect. Foolish and weak.

I'd think they would be in charge because it is my experience they are way tougher emotionally.

Not just emotionally. Pound for pound, women are better able to withstand pain and injuries than men.

However, men are typically stronger (often much stronger) and larger, and women aren't enough tougher to offset this. Doesn't matter if you can absorb 50% more damage, if the other person is hitting you twice as hard. Add in patriarchal and aggressive tendencies...

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Regarding the actual essays, I find some of what she's saying to be questionable, at best. I don't deny that it's a visceral, compelling narrative, but so far (and I'm not that far into the first essay), she hasn't included much in the way of facts to demonstrate some of what she's saying (such as her assertion that a small, wealthy elite controlled the country from its inception, to pick one).

It may be that she does so later on, and I will certainly grant that if she is wrong about this, it won't make her wrong about other points (such as the way women are treated by the Christian right), but the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

So this is a hard argument to make since we are using the Bible as a reference and many of you don't believe in it, yet I will try anyways. Misogyny was very prevalent in the Judaic world. Yet if you look at the example Jesus set, he spent a good amount of his time around women. He spoke to the woman at the well (which was huge social taboo), he was very good friends with Mary, women washed his feet with tears and perfume(and before you use that as an argument that was a cultural norm at the time). Overall his treatment of women was quite superior, in fact he made everyone equal, no matter the race, religion, creed ect.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Was the point missed for a long time, is it still, is history rife with misogyny, absolutely. Does that make it right, no way. Just because someone goes and blows up a bunch of people running a marathon doesn't mean its the way it should be (even if it's accepted as a good thing in some cultures). So as you can see in order for me to argue this point I have to reference Jesus(who I consider to be the example) and you have to accept that Jesus exists. So for arguments sake lets say we agree on that

Logged

"A moderated religion is as good for us as no religion at all - and more amusing." --Screwtape--

Well, I don't think I can go so far as to agree that JC existed, but I'm fine with you saying he did as long as you realize we don't agree, etc.

I do note in your quote that Jesus wasn't upset by slavery, so any forward thinking generated by his words were tempered by his willingness to support another rather unpleasant human hobby. I guess maybe we should be happy with baby steps, though.

And his words don't mean much if his current followers (and I realize you are no fan of religion itself, or at least that is what I think I understand from other posts of yours), anyway, his current followers are far less likely to give women the equality most of here (including you) think they should have. So his ability to influence people seems tempered by what they want to do, regardless of what he says. Which means that if he was real, he wasn't very good at what he did, as sons of gods go. I would expect a bit more emphasis on the "do it or else" part or something. Again, if real, his influence has been watered down by a wide variety of believers who have pimped their religion to be what they want, not what a god might want. At least I assume the wide variety in christian beliefs, practices, social goals, etc. is a bit too broad to be pleasing any actual deities.

As I'm sure you understand, we see the bible as just one of many sacred texts, most of which you would agree are not related to any real gods. We add the bible to that list, you don't. Great wisdom exists in the books of the jews, the hindus, and yes, even the muslims. And there is some in the bible as well. But all of those religions, including yours, also make claims that go far beyond the believable, and which make each story something that requires faith, because none of the more fantastic claims of any of the books can be proven.

Now if we were not an atheist site because there were no religions, but you were joining us because we were having a discussion about the history of women's rights, and you wanted to bring up the Jesus story as an example of ancient texts where the stories being told seem to indicate that long, long ago there were people who seemed to want to treat women as equals, that might be of interest, myth/folklore/ancient wisdom-wise. But as realities go, we atheists aren't too good at accepting anything on faith, so otherwise the story is of little use. Especially since it would be pretty hard for you to show that followers of Jesus are doing anything positive about the issue. I'm not saying none are, but there is a huge swath of christians who most certainly pay attention to other parts of the bible that seem to indicate that males are more important than females. And that is relevant today.

Oh, one more thing. The washing of the feet thing was a cultural norm that Jesus was willing to participate in. Even though he was going against other norms. Again, that would be fine if it were part of some sort of effort to baby-step society to a better place. But I'm guessing he enjoyed it.

There's a serious problem with this, though. Which Jesus are we supposed to use? Each gospel has a different Jesus in it. So unless you can point out the real, 'historical' Jesus, then it's difficult to decide what attitudes he would have evidenced. To base it off of the gospels is to rely on propaganda.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

That is a pretty skimpy quote there. You have to stretch it awfully far to get to where you want to go with it. Particularly when you consider the mountain of misogyny in the OT (as you acknowledge) and the NT. The skeptics annotated bible has a pretty exhaustive list. In light of the weight of evidence, I find your argument unpersuasive.